A defining feature of the Caitanya tradition is the emphasis on japa of Bhagavān’s name.  At the suggestion of Śrī Ananta Kṛṣṇa dāsa ji, I present below Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on the Bhāgavata verses 6.2.9 and 6.2.10 which teach fundamental principles of nāma-aparādha, or offense to Bhagavān’s name.

The verses are as follows —

stenaḥ surāpo mitra-dhrug brahma-hā guru-talpa-gaḥ | strī-rāja-pitṛ-go-hantā ye ca pātakino’pare ||

sarveṣām apy aghavatām idam eva suniṣkṛtam | nāma-vyāharaṇaṁ viṣṇor yatas tad-viṣayā matiḥ ||

As usual, I will translate these after first translating Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on them. He starts by listing an objection from the previous verse —

nanu bhavatu nāma pātakānāṁ nāśaḥ, kintu kāma-kṛtānāṁ bahūnāṁ mahā-pātakānāṁ sahasraśa āvartitānāṁ dvādaśābda-koṭibhir apy anivartyānāṁ katham ekenaiva nāmābhāsena prāyaścittaṁ syāt ? ity ata āhuḥ—stena iti |

Objection: Ok, let the name be [accepted as] the destroyer of sins. However, how can just one nāma-ābhāsa, or semblance of the name, serve as atonement or prāyaścitta for many great sins that are repeated thousands of times, which were accrued by acting on desires? These great sins cannot be cancelled even after performing crores of atonements, each of which lasts for twelve years.

As background, this question comes up in the previous chapter where there is a discussion of prāyaścitta that is prescribed on the karma-mārga for atonement of sins. The conclusion there is that bhakti alone is the real prāyaścitta, because bhakti alone eliminates the tendency to commit sin. Prāyaścitta as prescribed on the karma-mārga will absolve one from sin only temporarily, as one goes back to committing it, just as an elephant might take a bath in a lake but roll in the mud immediately thereafter. In this second chapter of the 6th canto of the Bhāgavata, the above point is made with an example from Ajāmila’s life. Ajāmila is a dvija who married a prostitute, and fell into bad ways – drinking, gambling, and cheating others to make a living. He had ten children out of which the youngest was named Nārāyaṇa.

When Ajāmila was about to die, he saw three fierce looking agents of Yamarāja, who came to drag him away to hell. He shouted “Nārāyaṇa” out of fear, calling for his son to whom he was very deeply attached. As soon as he did so, four agents of Bhagavān appeared and stopped the messengers of Yamarāja. There ensued a long discussion. Verses 6.2.9 and 6.2.10 are spoken by the messengers of Bhagavān. The verses reply to the objection listed above as follows.

ity ata āhuḥ—stena iti | svarṇa-steyī idam eva suniṣkṛtaṁ pāpa-nirmūlīkaraṇāt śreṣṭhaṁ prāyaścittam | na tu dvādaśābdādikam | pāpa-nāśakatve’pi pāpa-nirmūlanāsāmarthyāt | nāpy etan-mātra-phalakaṁ, yato nāma-vyāharaṇāt tad-viṣayā nāmoccāraka-puruṣa-viṣayā madīyo’yaṁ mayā sarvathā rakṣaṇīya iti viṣṇor matir bhavatīti svāmi-caraṇāḥ |

The reply is in these verses. The word suniṣkṛtaṁ means the topmost atonement, owing to the removal of the root of sin [which arises from activities such as being a] gold-thief, and not the twelve-year atonements, because even though they destroy sin, they lack the capacity to remove sin at its root. And this [removal of sin at its root] is not the only fruit of the name, because, as Sridhar swami writes, by uttering the name, the [following] thought develops in Viṣṇu (viṣṇor matir) about the person who utters the name, “He is mine, and to be always protected by me”.

The commentary above emphasizes the difference between prāyaścitta and the power of uttering the name. Śrī Viśvanātha explains why uttering the name is so powerful.

sva-nāma śrutvaiva tad-uccārakam ajāmilaṁ smṛtvaiva tam ānetum asmān ādiṣṭavān iti kim uta sevyatvena viṣṇu-viṣayā matis tasya puruṣasya syād iti bhāvaḥ | ato yama-dūtān sākṣād darśayitum evājamilasya tadānīntanaṁ nāma-vyāharaṇaṁ sarva-pāpa-prāyaścittatvena viṣṇu-dūtā ūcuḥ |

Hearing His own name once, remembering the person who uttered it i.e. Ajāmila, He [Viṣṇu] ordered us to bring him. The overall sense is – what can then be said about that person whose mind is focused on Viṣṇu in the mood of servitorship? As such, it was only to demonstrate [this principle] to the Yama-dūtas that the Viṣṇu-dūtas explained Ajāmila’s utterance of the name at that particular moment to be the atonement for all sins.

Now he launches into a very interesting discussion of precisely when Ajāmila became freed of sins. It was not the moment when he was dying, but much earlier!

vastutas tu putra-nāma-karaṇa-samayam ārabhyaiva putrāhvānādiṣu bahuśo vyāhṛtānāṁ nāmnāṁ madhye yat prathamaṁ tad eva sarva-pāpa-praśamakam abhūd anyāni tu bhakti-sādhakānīti vyākhyeyam | yad vyājahāreti parokṣa-nirdeśāt prathamaṁ nāmoddiśyaivoktam | vivaśa iti putra-sneha-vivaśa iti vyākhyeyam|

In actuality, among the many names [i.e. Nārāyaṇa] that were uttered for calling the son, starting from the time of the naming ceremony of the son, the first name was the one that destroyed all sins. The rest served the purpose of attaining bhakti. The words ‘yad vyājahāra’ [in verse 6.2.7] refer to the unobserved past, and therefore indicate the very first utterance of the name. The word ‘vivaśa’ [in verse 6.2.7] should be explained as ‘being compelled by affection for the son’

Now he considers an objection to his thesis —

na ca punaḥ punar nāma vyāharaṇānantaram api punaḥ punar utpannānāṁ veśyābhigama-surāpānādīnāṁ sarveṣāṁ pāpānāṁ praśamanārtham antima-samayottham eva nāma-vyāharaṇam apekṣitaṁ yad-anantaraṁ punaḥ pāpānutpattir iti vācyaṁ—vaikuṇṭha-nāma-grahaṇam aśeṣāgha-haraṁ viduḥ [bhā.pu. 6.2.14] ity atrāśeṣa-padopādānāt |

One should not state that the final name at the time of death was definitely required for destroying all the sins that developed again and again due to approaching the prostitute and drinking of alcohol etc, which were done even after the utterance of the names again and again. After the final utterance of the name [at death], there would be no possibility of sin. [This idea is refuted] because of the use of the word aśeṣa – entire – in the verse 6.2.14: vaikuṇṭha-nāma-grahaṇam aśeṣāgha-haraṁ viduḥ — The utterance of the name of Vaikuṇṭha is the destroyer of the entirety of sins.

He provides further evidence —

vartamānaṁ tu yat pāpaṁ yad bhūtaṁ yad bhaviṣyati |tat sarvaṁ nirdahaty āśu govindānala-kīrtanāt || [ha.bha.vi. 11.339] iti |
The utterance of the fire [of the name] “Govinda” immediately burns all those sins which are in the present, past and future. [HBV 11.339]

yan-nāma sakṛc chravaṇāt pukkaśo’pi vimucyate saṁsārāt || [bhā.pu. 6.16.44]
Hearing whose name even once, even a cāndāla becomes free from saṁsāra. [bhā.pu. 6.16.44]

citraṁ vidūra-vigataḥ sakṛd ādadīta yan-nāmadheyam adhunā sa jahāti bandhaṁ [bhā.pu. 5.1.34]
How wonderful that even a cāndāla immediately gives up bondage upon uttering His name just once.

ity ādiṣu saṁsāra-bandhādi-prayogāc ca |
In these verses, freedom from bondage of saṁsāra is explicitly mentioned.

tatra tatra samaya-viśeṣa-niyamānabhidhānāc ca prathama-nāma-grahaṇenaiva sarva-pāpānāṁ tad-vāsanāyās tan-mūla-bhūtāvidyāyā api nāśāvagateḥ punaḥ pāpa-prarohāsambhavāt |

And in these verses, there is no specification of any specific time [for utterance of the name]. [For these two reasons], it is understood that the utterance of the first name alone resulted in destruction of all sins, all mental impressions [for sins], and their root which is avidyā. As such, there was no possibility of further sprouting of sin.

Now he considers another objection. If one is to accept that uttering the name was sufficient to destroy all sins, why did Ajāmila continue to sin after the first time he uttered the name? Śrī Viśvanātha writes —

nanu tarhi prathama-nāma-grahaṇānantaram evājamilena nirvidya tataḥ kathaṁ nāpasṛtaṁ, pāpa-prarohābhāve’pi tasyām eva dāsyām āsajya tat tad eva pāpaṁ tāvat-kāla-paryantaṁ pratyuta kṛtam | ucyate—saṁskāra-vaśāt jīvan-muktānāṁ karmaiva tasyāpi tāvat-kāla-paryantaṁ tat tad eva pāpaṁ punaḥ punar utpādyamānam apy utkhāta-daṁṣṭroraga-daṁśavan na phala-janakam |

Objection — Why did Ajāmila, becoming dispassionate [due to the influence of the name], not leave from there [i.e. leave home]. On the contrary, despite an absence of sprouting of sin, he, remaining attached in that maid-servant, continued to commit sin after sin till the end of his life. The reply is as follows — his [actions are] also like the actions of the jivan-muktas which are impelled by mental impressions. They did not bear a result despite generating different sins till the end of his life, like the bite of a defanged snake.

Perhaps not satisfied with the above explanation, he offers another explanation (generally, commentators tend to favor their latter explanation) —

kiṁ vā, matāntarotkhātābhāvārthaṁ bhagavataiva pāpa-bījābhāve’pi punaḥ pāpe pravartanaṁ bhaved ity eva vyākhyeyam anyathā stuty-artha-vāde kalpanāntare vā vyākhyāyamāne tathārtha-vādo hari-nāmni kalpanam iti pādmokta-nāmāparādha-prasaktau, nāmno’pi sarva-suhṛdo hy aparādhāt pataty adhaḥ iti,

Alternatively, it can be stated that in order to not uproot alternative opinions, Bhagavān Himself, engaged Ajāmila in sins despite his lacking even the seed for such sins. Otherwise, if it is to be explained that [Ajāmila engaged in sin because he] considered the scriptural praises of the name as mere commendations ( artha-vāda ) and ascribed his own imaginary meaning to the name ( hari-nāmni kalpanam ), which constitute an offense to the name as stated in the Padma-purana, then despite the name being a friend to all, he would fall down due to offense [i.e. there would be no possibility of his going to Vaikuṇṭha].

He offers evidence to support that one would fall down upon committing an offense —

artha-vādaṁ harer nāmni sambhāvayati yo naraḥ |sa pāpiṣṭho manuṣyāṇāṁ niraye patanti sphuṭam || iti |

That person who imagines the scriptural praise of Hari’s names as mere commendations, is sinful among men, and falls down into hell.

yan-nāma-kīrtana-phalaṁ vividhaṁ niśamya na śraddadhāti manute yad utārtha-vādam |
yo mānuṣas tam iha duḥkha-caye kṣipāmi saṁsāra-ghora-vividhārti-nipīḍitāṅgam ||

I throw that person who, even after hearing the different fruits of nāma-kīrtana, does not believe but imagines them to be mere commendations, into a pile of misery, to be tormented by the various sufferings of saṁsāra.

śruti-smṛti-purāṇeṣu nāma-māhātmya-vāciṣu | ye’rtha-vāda iti brūyur na teṣāṁ niraya-kṣayaḥ || [ha.bha.vi. 11.514-6]

Hell never ends for those who consider as mere commendations, the statements glorifying the name in the śrutis, smṛtis, and purāṇas.

iti pādma-kātyāyana-saṁhitādi-paraḥ-sahasra-vacanād adhaḥ-pāta eva syāt |

Given these thousands of statements in the Padma Purana, Kātyāyana-samhita etc., such a person must certainly fall down.

He now points out the uselessness of prāyaścitta —

ata eva śrī-viṣṇurātena—

kvacin nivartate’bhadrāt kvacic carati tat punaḥ | prāyaścittam atho’pārthaṁ manye kuñjara-śaucavat || [bhā.pu. 6.1.10] iti |

Therefore, Śrī Parīkṣit said, “Sometimes one refrains from sin, and other times, one engages in them. Therefore, I consider atonement to be useless, just like the bathing of an elephant.

punaḥ pāpa-pravṛtti-darśane prāyaścittam ākṣipatāpi bhakti-prasaṅge bhaktānām api kasya kasyacit punaḥ punaḥ pāpa-pravṛtti-darśane’pi naivākṣepaḥ kṛtaḥ |

As such, when engagement in sin is observed again, atonement is criticized [for being useless], but in the context of bhakti, despite repeated engagement in sin by some devotees, [bhakti] has never been criticized.

Śrī Viśvanātha now embarks on a really interesting discussion that brings to light the importance of nāma-aparādha. I will translate the first portion here, and continue it in a second article.

api ca, yathā nāmabhāsa-balenājāmilo durācāro’pi vaikuṇṭhaṁ prāpitas tathaiva smārtādayaḥ sadācārāḥ śāstrajñā api bahuśo nāma-grāhiṇo’py artha-vāda-kalpanādi-nāmāparādha-balena ghora-saṁsāram eva prāpyanta ity ato nāma-māhātmya-dṛṣṭyā sarva-mukti-prasaṅgo’pi nāśaṅkyaḥ |

Furthermore, just as Ajāmila, despite being ill-behaved, attained Vaikuṇṭha on the strength of nāmābhāsa, the smārtas and others, who are well-behaved, and knowers of śāstra, only attain the fearful saṁsāra despite uttering the names many times, owing to the strength of committing offenses to the name of artha-vāda-kalpanam. As such, by ascertaining the glory of the name, one should never doubt that it can award liberation to all.

Now he presents the siddhānta —

tad evaṁ bhagavan-nāma sakṛt pravṛttam api sadya eva samūlaṁ pāpaṁ saṁharad api « phalann api vṛkṣaḥ kāla eva phalati » iti nyāyena prāyaḥ kiñcid vilambata eva svīya-phala-liṅgaṁ loke darśayitvā bahirmukha-śāstra-matocchedābhāvārthaṁ kvacin na darśayitvā ca sva-vyāhartṛ-janān svāparādha-rahitāṇ bhagavad-dhāma nayatīti siddhānto veditaḥ |

In this manner, the name of Bhagavān, even as it immediately eliminates all sin simply by virtue of being uttered once, generally delays its effects by the logic that “a fruiting tree gives its fruit only in time”. Showing the symptoms of its fruits in the world, and not showing it at other times in order to not uproot the opinion of śāstras that are oriented away from Bhagavān, the name carries those who utter it, and are devoid of offenses, to the abode of Bhagavān. This siddhānta is to be understood.

Summary

I can now translate the verse —

stenaḥ surāpo mitra-dhrug brahma-hā guru-talpa-gaḥ | strī-rāja-pitṛ-go-hantā ye ca pātakino’pare ||

sarveṣām apy aghavatām idam eva suniṣkṛtam | nāma-vyāharaṇaṁ viṣṇor yatas tad-viṣayā matiḥ ||

A gold-thief, an alcohol-drinker, a hater of friends, killer of a brahmana, one who approaches the guru’s wife impurely, a killer of a woman, king, father or cow, and any other types of sinners– for all these sinners– the utterance of the name is the topmost atonement, owing to the removal of the root of sin. [As a result of this utterance of the name] the thought develops in Viṣṇu about the person who utters the name, “He is mine, and to be always protected by me”.